In 2003, abortion opponents in the Republican party sought to ban a procedure called "intact dilation and extraction" by physicians and "partial birth" abortion by opponents. Regardless of the name, the procedure was rare and used to protect the health of the mother in cases when the pregnancy had progressed past a certain point. Progressives and other pro-choice members of the Senate argued that the ban was an attempt to chip away at a woman's right to choose, and that the absence of an exception to protect the health of the mother virtually guaranteed the Supreme Court would strike the bill down as unconstitutional. Feinstein (D-CA) proposed a substitute bill that would ban the procedure only in cases when the woman's health was not threatened and the fetus was viable outside the womb. Progressives supported this version as consistent with their principles and the Roe v. Wade decision. Nonetheless, it was rejected 35-60.